Nest and Nurture,LLC

Nest and Nurture,LLC I offer Lactation Consultation (I am a CLC), and Birth Doula services. I am a trained Professional Doula

I am just too stubbon.
03/11/2026

I am just too stubbon.

I know that I had planned on closing my business this month…but my heart just won’t let me…so for now, for this year….I will be open. As always…my goal as a doula and …

To answer that question, they compiled the findings of 43 studies of midwives’ reports of non-linear labor progress, i.e...
03/07/2026

To answer that question, they compiled the findings of 43 studies of midwives’ reports of non-linear labor progress, i.e., “labor slows, stalls, pauses, or even reverses, but later resumes naturally,” in which these phenomena were considered to be physiologic and normal. They found that such occurrences were common, could occur at any point in labor, lasted from a few minutes to more than two hours, and could occur multiple times in the same labor.
The midwife authors believed labor lulls to be not just normal but functional. They served purposes such as protecting against fetal distress and uterine muscle fatigue by allowing mother and baby to regulate the intensity of labor, permitting recovery from the demands of the dilation phase before embarking on the expulsion phase of labor, and permitting the baby to shift into a more favorable position for birth. One event, labor reversal, in which the cervix closes back down, they attributed to a reaction to interruptions or to agitation arising in the laboring woman or birthing person.
Regardless of whether lulls have the benefits claimed for them, these reports establish that obstetric expectations of how normal labor progresses don’t match reality and that, as the study concludes: “Research on physiological labor patterns, including plateaus, is a matter of some urgency as it is a necessary precursor to efforts aimed at reducing unnecessary and harmful interventions.”

The review's authors questioned whether studies establishing norms for labor progress conducted at hospital births—where results would be affected by labor management policies and study participants experience varying degrees of medical intervention—represented true physiologic norms. To answer that question, they compiled the findings of 43 studies of midwives’ reports of non-linear labor progress, i.e., “labor slows, stalls, pauses, or even reverses, but later resumes naturally,” in which these phenomena were considered to be physiologic and normal. They found that such occurrences were common, could occur at any point in labor, lasted from a few minutes to more than two hours, and could occur multiple times in the same labor.

The midwife authors believed labor lulls to be not just normal but functional. They served purposes such as protecting against fetal distress and uterine muscle fatigue by allowing mother and baby to regulate the intensity of labor, permitting recovery from the demands of the dilation phase before embarking on the expulsion phase of labor, and permitting the baby to shift into a more favorable position for birth. One event, labor reversal, in which the cervix closes back down, they attributed to a reaction to interruptions or to agitation arising in the laboring woman or birthing person.

Regardless of whether lulls have the benefits claimed for them, these reports establish that obstetric expectations of how normal labor progresses don’t match reality and that, as the study concludes: “Research on physiological labor patterns, including plateaus, is a matter of some urgency as it is a necessary precursor to efforts aimed at reducing unnecessary and harmful interventions.”

https://bit.ly/4r1pa0B

02/25/2026

Virginia's House and Senate have released their draft budgets. One of our priorities, funding for a midwifery workgroup, was included in the Senate draft (295 ), but not the House. Send the email below to ask all members of the money committees to put the midwifery workgroup Item 295 in the f...

02/25/2026

Just a reminder of a really important question.

In an editorial in The Lancet's EClinical Medicine, Professor Hannah Dahlen looked at the meta-analysis by Hutton et al (2019), which looked at 14 studies involving around 500,000 women.

It showed (again) that home and hospital birth are equally safe and that homebirths in well-integrated settings appear to lead to better perinatal outcomes.

She then raised an important question: 'Is it time to ask whether facility based birth is safe for low risk women and their babies?'

If you’d like to know more about the evidence on home birth, see https://www.sarawickham.com/research-updates/is_home_birth_safe/

We have an entire page of studies and links to load of evidence-based information about homebirth.

Dahlen HG (2019). Is it Time to Ask Whether Facility Based Birth is Safe for Low Risk Women and Their Babies? EClinicalMedicine doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2019.08.003

02/24/2026

We see more comments, queries and concerns about induction of labour than about any other single pregnancy and birth-related topic.

It's too hard to put everything that women and their families need to know in one post (which is why I have written two books about this!)

But here are some of the key facts.

Induction of labour is absolutely the right decision for some women, and absolutely not the right decision for others.

Some women are delighted that they had their labour induced, and some women regret this decision for decades.

Induction is often suggested for a risk factor rather than for any medical reason. This risk may not be greater than the risks of induction itself for you - only you can decide that.

It is for those reasons that we encourage anybody who might be affected by this to get lots of information about induction of labour or any other birth intervention before making a decision.

The mass media is not a good source of information about birth. Newspapers spin stories to make headlines and often fail to discuss the nuances and complexities of the issues.

Like many of my colleagues, my primary concern is that people who need to make such decisions can get good information from a credible source and make the decision that is right for them.

That’s why I’ve written two books about this. They have both helped tens of thousands of women and families make the decisions that are right for them.

I also have more than twenty articles and blog posts to help you understand the issues.

Loads more info at https;//www.sarawickham.com/iol

02/24/2026

Breastfeeding families can now donate breast milk through The King's Daughters Milk Depot at Children's Hospital of Richmond at VCU (CHoR), the first milk depot in Virginia.

02/21/2026
PLEASE NOTE...the babies were still being fed formula but went from using a dispenser/auto mixer to hand measuring and m...
12/17/2025

PLEASE NOTE...the babies were still being fed formula but went from using a dispenser/auto mixer to hand measuring and mixing.

12/05/2025

Babies that receive human milk have lower risk of heart disease, diabetes, cancer, and more. Human milk is far more than nutrition, it is a part of overall health/

Address

Henrico, VA

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Nest and Nurture,LLC posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Practice

Send a message to Nest and Nurture,LLC:

Share

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on LinkedIn
Share on Pinterest Share on Reddit Share via Email
Share on WhatsApp Share on Instagram Share on Telegram